Ball State prez: Intelligent design not science

Ball State prez: Intelligent design not science

Creation science and intelligent design are religion and not appropriate content for science courses at a public university such as Ball State University because it violates academic integrity, the school's president said in a letter Wednesday to faculty and staff.

"Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory. Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses," Jo Ann Gora wrote.

She wrote that more than 80 national and state scientific societies have said that intelligent design and creation science do not qualify as science. Such ideas can be taught in humanities or social science courses, she said, but must be discussed in comparison to other views and philosophical perspectives, each other, with no endorsement of one perspective over another.

"Our commitment to academic freedom is unflinching. However, it cannot be used as a shield to teach theories that have been rejected by the discipline under which a science course is taught. Our commitment to the best standards of each discipline being taught on this campus is equally unwavering," she wrote. "As I have said, this is an issue of academic integrity, not academic freedom."

The letter was criticized by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based, proponent of intelligent design. Senior fellow John West called Gora's letter outrageous, saying academic freedom is designed to protect minority and dissenting views.

Really all they have to do is recategorize these courses as humanities. No one says they can’t teach them just don’t give science credits for non-science courses.

Why would anyone with integrity teach this recently made-up nonsense at all? It could be taught to psychology students as an example of a group delusion or conspiracy theory mentality, bit the content of these contrived beliefs (like Moon landing denial etc) has no value what-so-ever.

There is too much well researched valuable information in the modern world, to waste time on this sort of nonsense.

Sedano- I don’t think they want to teach it that way because it must be taught comparitively. So the Eve from a rib belief goes head-to-head with the giant lotus and other creation myths. Seeing all the nonsense side by side is a good way for kids to notice how silly they all are- a big step toward viewing their own belief critically and dumping it in the bin with Santa.

I find it a little dishonest that the article refers to the Discovery Institute as “a proponent of intelligent design”, when they (according to their own Wedge document) actually view ID as just a tool to get young-Earth creationism accepted as the majority “scientific” viewpoint.

I find it a little dishonest that the article refers to the Discovery Institute as “a proponent of intelligent design”, when they (according to their own Wedge document) actually view ID as just a tool to get young-Earth creationism accepted as the majority “scientific” viewpoint.

And you can tell they have no shame or understanding or irony when they describe factual criticism as “Orwellian”